Androphobia

“Why do men feel threatened by women?” I asked a male friend of mine. So this male friend of mine, who does by the way exist, conveniently entered into the following dialogue.
“I mean,” I said, “men are bigger, most of the time, they can run faster, strangle better, and they have on the average a lot more money and power.”
“They’re afraid women will laugh at them,” he said. “Undercut their world view.”
Then I asked some women students in a quickie poetry seminar I was giving, “Why do women feel threatened by men?”
“They’re afraid of being killed,” they said. Atwood, Margaret, Writing the Male Character (1982)

As of late I’ve been pursuing more feminist blogs than MGTOW/MRA ones, attempting to learn more about the nuances of this ideology. Most of them I already knew from the 2 Women’s Studies and 1 Women’s Health courses I took in college (was trying to be well-rounded and got A’s in both, but didn’t agree with/experience most of the subject matter). However, there is a steady undercurrent of androphobia that I never encountered before, and this is what I want to talk about today.

Apparently, women are afraid of men. I’m sure not all women, just as I am equally sure there are men who are afraid of women…but on many feminist blogs and websites there inevitably is a discussion about the fear of male strangers, typically in public places. There are comments from women stating that;

-they’ll wait for the next elevator if a man or group of men are in it.

-they will allow a door to close rather than holding it for a man behind them.

-they do not take walks through their neighborhoods after dark.

-they will not stop to aid men or older boys who require assistance.

-they will cross the street to avoid men who are approaching from the opposite direction.

-they will not walk across a seemingly empty parking lot, even if their car has no other vehicles around it.

-they will walk faster or go into a building they weren’t planning on entering if there happens to be a man walking behind them on the sidewalk.

Now, if you are in an unfamiliar city for a meeting/vacation, or live in a bad area, I can understand feeling a need for higher than average awareness. When I go to Indianapolis for Gencon every year, I pay more attention to my surroundings than I do back in my hometown. But this doesn’t mean I am consciously afraid of anything happening…I know the chances are incredibly slim. It’s more the fact I’m walking to my hotel room at 2am and am tired, so I try to make up for it by being overly aware of what’s going on around me. And yes, I pass by other people, usually men, at this time of “night”…but hey, I’m out walking so what’s the problem with them doing the exact same thing?

But not getting in an elevator just because there is a male-bodied person in it already? Crossing the street to avoid walking next to a teenage boy? Letting the door close in someone’s face or being scared of walking through an empty parking lot? To my way of thinking, this is not only very rude in some cases, but shows a distinct sense of hyperawareness that borders on true paranoia. It’s one thing to take stock of a situation and keep oneself safe…if something feels “off” to any of my readers, I hope they heed that little voice of survival. Being macho or proving your independence is not a good excuse for entering into a potentially dangerous situation. But neither do I recommend purposefully looking for monsters around every corner, because odds are usually that there are none. Be conscious of your surroundings, but don’t turn garbage pails into gunmen or street signs into stalkers.

The other thing I noticed about these discussions is that when non-feminist men asked questions about this pervasive feeling of fear, they were shut down…hard. These commenters didn’t use victim-blaming, didn’t attempt to shame women for feeling this way, and didn’t use foul or sexist language…but each and every time they were informed that “all women are taught to fear men”, “this is what reality is like for girls and women”, and “check your privilege, because you can’t experience fear the way we do”. It was frustrating to read, because there were so many instances of potentially excellent conversation that just did not happen. And for what?

First of all, I would never tell someone that they are physically incapable of experiencing the same emotion as myself. I apologize in advance if this offends someone, but to deny that another human being can feel something like overwhelming fear of strangers/harm is very arrogant in my mind. How is a feminist telling a man “you cannot feel fear the way I do because you have a penis” any different than a MRA telling a woman “you cannot feel compassion the way I do because you have a vagina”? I have seen both arguments, and to my egalitarian way of thinking, they both stink to the heavens.

Secondly, this is not what reality is like for all girls and women. I do not see bogeymen in every shadow I pass by. I have never felt afraid of taking nightly walks around my neighborhood, whether I lived in a gated community, a typical suburb, or now that I’m in a more urban area. The idea of not getting in an elevator just because a man is occupying it is a thought that has honestly never crossed my mind before…and is rather dumb considering that I have been in hotels where there’s a Button Pushing male employee. I do not cross the street to avoid boys or men, nor do I cringe away from them if I’m on a public bus and they sit next to me. I think it is highly disingenuous to claim, in no uncertain terms, that all women have a constant fear as part of their reality. Am I saying I’ve never been in a situation where a man made me afraid/uncomfortable? Nope. I can think of about 4 examples without even trying…but these are not indicators of something being wrong with men as a whole. These were simply circumstances where an individual man was a sexist jerk who tried to act entitled to my body. Needless to say, they were told how incorrect they were as I removed myself from the immediate area and inserted myself into the nearest crowd of people.

Lastly, I’d like to point out that not every girl child is taught to fear men. I was certainly not, and after having a quick discussion with my mother about the idea of such a lesson, I can say my sisters were not either. Of course, after 2 divorces my mother would have probably taught them that “men are jerks” as that’s her mindset right now, but luckily my sisters are grown up enough to (hopefully) realize that’s not true in all cases. I do not know if the majority of girls are taught to fear men like feminists say…I pray that they are not, because this is an incredibly sexist attitude to instill in a young mind. It sounds similar to telling white children that black people are out to mug them, or telling Pagan kids to be hypervigilant around Christians.

I am reminded of an example from a few years ago at my job, where we had an afterschool D&D Juniors game run by a coworker of mine. Now, G was a man in his late 30’s. He dressed in our uniform which is a crisp button down shirt with our logo, was clean shaven, no tattoos or piercings, very open/jovial demeanor, a father of 4, and a Scoutmaster to boot. In other words, an employee who is good with kids and has the patience required to deal with younglings.

One day, a new mother came in with her son and daughter, both of whom looked to be between 10-12. When she saw G sitting at the table, she held her kids close and asked me (cashiering at the time) if there would be any chance of getting a woman to run the game instead. I explained to her that I was the only female on staff at the time and didn’t know the adventure enough to run it, but assured her that G’s qualities above made him an excellent teacher for younger kids. She was having none of it, and informed me (using rather rude language) that our store was ridiculously stupid for having men run events for children before storming out.

This left me with many things to think about. Namely, that she was so afraid of men being around kids that she was angered at the idea of leaving them to sit at a table in a brightly lit store with 5 other children…and that she was willing to speak in front of her offspring in such a way as to make being an adult male seem “bad” to her son, and “dangerous” to her daughter. I now wonder if this was truly the strange occurrence I had previously filed it away as, or if this is what the new generation of mothers are teaching their children. Is this what the feminist bloggers and commenters mean when they say that “girls are taught to fear men”? If so, I pray to the Gods that this doesn’t continue!

Oh, and just to smooth any ruffled feathers: I know that women are raped, mugged, kidnapped, assaulted, and murdered everyday (as are men). Most of these haven’t happened to me, and the ones that have were either easy to get away from or were done by relatives. I am not trying to blame any victims/survivors, nor am I saying one shouldn’t be aware of their surroundings or protect themselves. I am only pointing out that there’s a big difference between being safe…and being paranoid. One leads to a better chance for a longer, happier life. The other may lead to a longer life, but one filled with fear, sexism, and lack of mobility in public spaces.

Thoughts? Comments? Just remember to keep it civil and don’t make remarks against either sex/gender. Thanks!

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

66 thoughts on “Androphobia”

Men feel threatened by women (not physically, but legally and financially) because when most women achieve enough legal and financial power, they wash their hands of men.
Men having more money than women is ending now. 26% of companies are now woman-owned.
Women are afraid of men today often because they are by themselves without a husband.
If we just go back to the way things were from when the earth began till 1900, and end the Modernist social experiments, most of our problems would be solved. SIMPLE.

Well, problems would be solved for some people but not for others. For example, if a woman is a staunch Traditionalist then older ways of living are helpful to her. But for women like me, who are careerists or happily single/independent, these older ways of living would take away rights that we need to survive and be content. I am going to be opening my own business next year, and I’d be unable to if we went back to pre-1900s.

Both men and women should have the option of going their own way and not needing a spouse in order to survive or be respected.

Women have just as many concerns and problems that men do.
A person’s own problems are of up most concern to them.
Blaming others for our faults is an all to common trait.
No one MADE Elliot Rodgers kill. He took it upon himself to kill.
I DO wish however that robitics was more advanced. I remember the 1960′s.
When I think of what we were suppost to have NOW, as was predicted then,
it makes me sad indeed. I’m doomed to a lonely miserable death.

“I’d be unable to if we went back to pre-1900s.”
Are you sure about that? (Genuine question)
Sounds like a feminist trope to me. I’m not saying that there were many, but none? That would surprise me.
— seperate part from the above —
I’ve given up trying to talk sense to people wedded to alternate realities. I don’t just mean fervent feminists, mabnooz types etc. But generally speaking there appear to be a lot of people fixated on their reality and they cannot be shifted by reason. They prefer bent stats, exaggerations and outright lies (or seem to)
Do schools not teach critical thinking anymore?
Is all well intentioned safety advice really ‘victim blaming’? All of it? Seriously?
If it’s 1 in 4 (and it isn’t, but let’s pretend) where are all these people? It’s a ridiculous lie, but people cast aside what their reason and lying eyes say, and apparently get swept away by emotion! Why live in that terrible world of fear and victimhood when even a quick glance around denies that reality. Is it a love of drama, a kind of hysteria?
Tarn, you are the person to get the answers to those questions and I would love to hear them from a trusted, sensible source.
Good luck!

You made a good point about not just accepting what I was told, so I dug around and did some research. The first woman-owned business in the US was a small publishing company owned by Mary Katherine Goddard and her widowed mother in 1766.

It seems that the majority of female-owned businesses were passed on when the husband/father died, but there were also a small amount of woman founded businesses. Patents and voting took longer to get, but as we all know they eventually came about as well. (I still stand by my assertion that I prefer modern rights to pre 1900 rights though…) 😉

No, schools teach you how to take tests, not how to reason or think.

I believe the ratio is at “1 in 6” now, but remember that this is *not* women who will be raped. It is women who will be raped + women who experience attempted rape + women who experience sexual assault. Still not a good number by any means, but considering that men are something like 1 in 10 or 1 in 12, and the female body is still overly sexualized in the media, I think it’s a realistic ratio.

I have a bit more to say about this topic, but it will have to wait till tomorrow (probably).

I don’t deny progress has been made, and make no mistake, I do view changes for men and women since 1900 as progress. I mean the common man got the vote in that period as well as the common woman.
I’ll dig for some numbers tomorrow if I get a chance. I’m not happy with woolly definitions though. I doubt the truth is within a few orders of magnitude of 6 though. Unless wandering eyes counts as assault (wouldn’t surprise me if some did)

Yes, my country is all over the place. Initially the only people who could vote were white men who had taxable income and/or owned 50+ acres of property. Women could vote in NJ so long as they also had the property requirements, and property owning freed male slaves could vote in 4 states (not positive which ones). However, if you were a white male who couldn’t afford the poll taxes, pass the literacy tests, or were the “proper” religion, then you could be denied your right to vote in certain jurisdictions.

In 1868, the 14th amendment said anyone who was born or legally naturalized had to be considered a “citizen”.

The 15th amendment in 1870 said that “race, color, or previous servitude” could not be used to stop a man from voting.

Women of all types got the vote in 1920 when the 19th amendment said that no person could be excluded from voting “on account of sex”.

It seems that, just like nowadays, the US was quite behind in catching up with the progress in the UK…*sigh*

“I’d be unable to if we went back to pre-1900s.”
Feminist revisionism. There have always been women who have owned and/or run businesses. What they tended not to do was aggressively develop and expand them so the vast majority remained small, sole traders. They also have a tendency to sell only to other women. Even though there’s a great deal of triumphalism about the numbers of women starting businesses today the last remains true. The vast majority are selling products and services only to a female target group.

Yeah, Spawny already asked me to look into that, which I’m sure you saw. I have been thinking about this since my response, and even this is incorrect. Yes, it’s the correct year for when a white woman created a business in the US, but obviously Native American women were most likely doing so beforehand.

I dug a bit further into what is classified as a small business in the US, and found that you can stay at home making bracelets or running a daycare for your neighbors and so long as you have the proper paperwork this is a business. I’m going to do more research, and report back with my findings.
Not that there’s anything wrong with having a home run business. A number of men and women work from home or with under 5 employees and they provide valuable services to their local communities and sometimes beyond. However, I plan on having an actual brick and mortar building with 3500 square feet and an outdoor entrance in a county with a college demographic and a population density of 700,000 or higher. Oh, and in need of a gaming store. 🙂

I’d simply go back to the 1300s.
>>>Feminists<<< wouldn't like going back to the old days, but the Modernist goobledeegook telling women they must have careers and equal rights to be happy and fulfilled would vanish.
No successful civilization in history was founded on men and women going their own way en masse. Every one without exception is founded on nuclear families. Women having the option of going their own way destroys the nuclear family; men are tossed away like garbage.
And men don't want to go their own way; they want a woman or women. MGTOW only exists because feminism has broken man/woman relationships. Everyone going their own way is like everyone choosing their own direction on a one way superhighway.
Lon Spector:
Hello again. Lonely and miserable ??? No way. Please read Staying Single: Treasure or Trash in my book http://www.wowedbytruth.com Tell me what you think; maybe I can improve my piece. Have a nice day/evening.

Feminists wouldn’t want to, certainly, but neither would some MGTOWs or egalitarians like myself. There have always been people of both sexes who have chosen to remain single, regardless of the era. Some notable women are Clara Barton, Emily Bronte, and Queen Elizabeth I…some men are Leonardo Da Vinci, James Buchanan Jr., and the Wright brothers. These are only a few of the many famous singles, and there are a good deal more who never became household names.

I actually agree with you that women shouldn’t be told that a career is the path to fulfillment. For some, like me, it certainly is…but I’d be lying if I claimed it was true for everyone, or even the majority. The option should be available, but society needs to remember it’s an *option*, and not the correct option for all women just as marriage is simply an *option* for men.

Tarnished another great post on gender. I guess for many women there is a fear of men and fear for their safety. I understand rape is a reality but you wrote about extreme paranoia regarding men. As a man I will never understand fully what it is that women experience. That is why I come to blogs such as this and try to understand what it is like to walk in a womens shoes. I don’t know I just think there is such a “gender gap” and “war of the sexes” that men and women may be as different as an animal to a human. That is a depressing fact. Some studies have shown that men and womens brains are wired differently. The author John Gray wrote a bestselling book called “men are from mars, women are from venus”, which is all about the differences between men and women, Aww shucks it seems like men and women might as well be two different species. That is a reality unfortunately.
On the other side I am sensitive to people who feel intersexed or are transgendered or queer or whatever fulfills someone’s destiny. I am aware that some people think gender is a construct and a result of socialization, and men and women are absolutely the same. However after realizing again what you wrote how many women live in fear of men and avoid them in public or will not let their kids be near male instructors, men and women may as well be two different beings. It is a totally different human experience being a man and a woman. That is a very depressing fact. The author Eckhardt Tolle in his book ‘The Power of Now” stated that women have a “pain body” a collective fear of male violence in their unconscious from many years throughout history of mens violence over women.But look at female sex workers/escorts who invite strange men to their places and go out with strange men for dates. I guess if money is a motivator for these women, they have no fear or very little of it. Look at how boisterous and aggressive groups of women with no fear are at some bachelorette parties around male strippers. But that is because the environment is safe and controlled at these parties and it is probably a small percentage of women as per the whole female population at these events.
I don’t know Tarnished it seems that men and women are so different and have such different human experiences in life it is a downer. However I guess if everyone just tries to be better human beings to each other and just make a better world perhaps mens and womens attitudes will change about each other? After all what is life but love? Or is that just a pipe dream? The woman who crosses the street to avoid a man can is some ways be as extreme as the hardcore mgtow who is so bitter he avoids women. I guess there is another side to this androphobia called gynophobia which is still rather an obscure condition. Here is a link I sawhttp://voices.yahoo.com/what-gynophobia-333872.html?cat=5

I think a lot of this goes beyond gender and has a lot to do with the media. The media has pumped us so full of fear that everyone is convinced there is a rapist/mugger/kidnapper/child molester lurking around every corner and hiding under every bed. Obviously some people have been victimized and have genuine fears of these things. Okay, I get that. But I always think back to the months before 9/11 – slow news days lead to hyped-up stories, so it became the summer of JAWS and suddenly everybody was afraid to go in the water. The number of shark attacks had not suddenly increased exponentially – only the coverage had.
I recognize there are bad people out there, but the news media has a way of skewing perceptions to make the world appear scarier than it really is. Stastically, has crime increased since the 70s or 80s or 90s, relative to the size of the population? I have a feeling the answer is no. Fear has certainly increased, though. I’ve seen parents pick up their children from the bus stop and drive them home – and they’re in a cul-de-sac! Like, seriously?? People need to take a deep breath and turn off the news and go eat some fruit or something.

Tarn:
For the sake of men? NO NO NO. NO. Men get no benefit whatsoever.
Since men were never given in marriage, those men with a low drive and superior brainpower could still do their thing. And with polygamy outlawed and pre-marital a taboo, most men will always choose marriage and families.
And it would be better for your notable women to have had children, and raise great men.
You have no examples of any successful civilization where the majority of people did their own thing, smokescreens notwithstanding. Society is crumbling now, and will be wiped out if people don’t stop their rebellion.

I never claimed that any successful civilization had the majority of men and women went their own way, simply that there has always been a percentage that *has*.

If premarital sex is severely taboo or even somehow outlawed in the US, then yes…the vast majority of men and women would choose marriage. I don’t necessarily know about “families”. A married couple is a family, but I have a feeling you mean a married couple with children. If I *had* to get married tomorrow or face, say, 20 years in prison, I would probably get married at this point in my life. But if I had to produce offspring via my own body or spend the next 20 years in prison, I would choose the jailtime.

I think it’s a bit sexist for you to say that the notable single women I mentioned would have better served their country by raising “great men”. For one thing, they should raise “great women” too (what if they only had daughters?) and there is no reason for them to be required to stay at home raising children rather than ruling a country, writing great literature, making scientific breakthroughs, or doing humanitarian acts that benefit hundreds of thousands.

From what I can tell from doing some quick searches on Google, our species is *still* on a J-Curve in terms of population. I truly don’t see how even 15% of the worldwide population not reproducing could mean the death of humanity as a whole.

It’s cool that you pointed this out. I was reading an article in my local paper a few weeks ago that said, despite the ever-horrible news, crime stats are down nearly across the board. It really is just that our world has grown “smaller” due to improved communication technology…we *hear* about more crime than our ancestors did, but there’s less out there comparatively.

“those men with a low drive and superior brainpower could still do their thing.”
I found it interesting that you included famous men that were unmarried. Of course the Wright Brothers and President Buchanan. Although these men were not classified officially as mgtow because the term was not around then I think they were. I think it is intriguing here are successful, intelligent, and probably men with some money who many traditionalists would say marriage material but these men said no to marriage. I googled single politicians/ celebrities and there are a few unmarried politicians. I do not know if you like football but the head coach of the Philadelphia Eagles Chip Kelly has never been married. Now here is a prominent male inasmuch as the NFL is very popular in the USA. Mr Kelly earns a couple of million bucks a year and has status but he has chosen to remain single and he is in his 40′s.
Yes I also agree women were “kept” and had to marry years ago. I think whether a man or woman society should accept single people. I still think it is a coupled society. I just get encouraged when a successful male at least in the eyes of our society chooses to stay single. Of course money does not buy happiness but it is intriguing in a way.
Yes more people are not marrying and not having kids but I do not think we are in a population crisis. There will always be enough “breeders” (childless by choice couples call people with kids this term), to fill the population. Plus immigrants will add to the population.
I commend woman who choose not to have children because society considers these women a “waste” which is not right. People should have the freedom to choose and be mgtow or a wgtow.

Rape is indeed a reality, but the vast majority of them happen via people known to the victim. Male, female, young, old…more are sexually abused by relatives, spouses/dates, and “friends” than from a random stranger on the street. Plus men can be forced to penetrate or be penetrated just as much as women can be penetrated.

The thing about never being able to experience “what a woman experiences” holds true for a lot of situations. I will never be able to experience life as a female who’s happy to be female, a black person, an Asian person, a person who’s been disabled since birth, a person who battles addictions, a full-bodied male, a person who’s still a virgin at age 50…the list can go on for eternity. I am a middle class, average build white female with blue eyes, a 36D chest, freckles, and blonde hair. This is what people interact with when they see me…I can change a lot of it, but not everything.

In short, there are a significant number of experiences that make up an individual life, and none of us can experience all of those. However, there are so very many more that we share that can help us find common ground. Food for thought: Is the “gender/sex gap” larger than the “religion gap”, or “racial gap”, or “class gap”? Do you have more in common with a monk in Tibet simply because he also has a penis, or with an American woman who shares your language, culture, spiritual beliefs, and is in the same line of work?

The idea that men and women are so completely different that they are “different species” is a dangerous one, but one worth talking about. At various points in history and in different cultures arguments like these have been used to harm both sexes, intentionally and unintentionally. After all, if men generally have a higher sex drive, then they are closer to being “animals” and should be feared. If women are generally better with children, then *they* are closer to “animals” and shouldn’t be able to vote because their brains are ‘obviously’ more child-like. (This was actually an argument for why women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, but I never saw a corresponding argument that male neurological doctors who excelled at relating to their severely retarded patients should likewise be denied. Funny, that.)

As a whole, men and women are not “the same”. In general, there are not only brain-wiring differences, but also height, metabolism, hormones, sensitivity to smells and colors, muscle mass, even intelligence (more women are of average intelligence, more men are either below average or above). Once again, the list goes on. But I reiterate: How much do these matter in regards to modern daily interactions? Or, perhaps a better question, how much *should* they matter?

I’ve never heard of this “pain body” before, but it sounds similar to Jung’s idea of “collective unconscious”. I am a proponent of much of his philosophy, incidentally, so I am willing to believe that women who identify as women have this. At the same time, I think it’s important to remember that despite any potential biological memories, the average person can go beyond them to make decisions regarding their life as it is now. Thus a woman might be afraid of men in the primal part of her mind, but also be solely heterosexual and desirous of love and sexual companionship. This woman will date “strange” men in an effort to find one who is compatible with her own personality.

I’ve yet to go to a bachelorette party but I have seen these on the porn sites I frequent. They actually scare me a bit…I can get demanding or faux-aggressive during sex, but these women fluctuate between being rabid wolverines who fondle the strippers to the point of bruising them, and sex-starved sluts willing to do anything, often within minutes. I realize most of them are off-their-asses drunk, but I find treating the men like sex toys to be nauseating. And yes, I feel the same about men doing so to female strippers (though you have to pay a lot more to touch them, and it’s done discreetly in another room). I’ve a notion that I wouldn’t enjoy myself at a Chipendale’s, because I don’t drink like that and I can’t *not* think of the stripper as a person. I’d probably ruin the scene by being inquisitive to the guy’s likes/dislikes and just wanting to give him a nice blowjob before tipping him and leaving. At least then I’ll have given pleasure to a fellow human being instead of an emotionally distant actor…

I feel bad for MGTOWs that have been so hurt by women that they cannot open themselves up to sex or intimacy anymore. As my FwB has been teaching me all these years, animals *need* touch…it can lead to increased sickness, depression, and antisocial behaviors. Humans are no different, and it pains me to think about all the men out there who are craving such a simple, basic thing as the friendly/sensual touch of another person. If I wasn’t still trying to get over some of my touch phobia, or if I could be guaranteed to not be disrespected/mocked, I could see myself giving intimacy to men like this. However, I’ve read various MGTOW forums long enough to know that the majority would either take my gift then gloat about me being “a slut” online, have such disdain for the female body in general that they’d all out refuse, or wouldn’t be able to believe I was really offering what I’d be offering. I am too much of an empath…I want to take the world’s pain unto myself, which I know is impossible. But if I can make even a few people happier, maybe they’ll pay it forward. I don’t know, I’m kinda rambling at this point.

Oh, and I’m afraid if you’re reading my blog to find out how the “other half” thinks and feels, you will probably be disappointed. 😉 Though I do agree with you that whatever differences we have or experiences we share, it’s generally a better idea to be kind and communicative with one another than to automatically assume there are insurmountable barriers to understanding.

For one thing, I believe the “homo” part of homophobia comes from the Greek prefix of homo meaning “the same” or “similar” (like a homogeneous solution in chemistry).

For another, you just pointed out that homo, in Latin, is a gender neutral term originally just being used to refer to humankind rather than the males only. Thus someone who is afraid of/doesn’t like homosexuals is a homophobe, someone who is afraid of men/women is an androphobe or gynophobe respectively, and someone who just doesn’t like other humans is a misanthrope.

This is a good dialogue. I totally understand your point of view where I as a white jewish male could never understand what it is like to be a black person or a person from Hungary or China or Nigeria. Yes I could see a scenario where I have more in common with a woman from Long Island where I was raised that a man raised in Ghana or Croatia .Your point about there being a vast array of diversity and life experiences of all humanity.
I think men and women have a unique difference as opposed to other differences between groups. A horrible racist in the USA can just live in an all white town and try to avoid African American people. Same goes for a man in America who despises another country for he just never has to visit the country. But with men and women we are so interconnected we would really have to go out of the way to avoid each other. There can be instances where a misogynist can actually be married and at least on the surface” love” his wife. There was a book out a few years back I do not recall the author but it’s title was ‘Men who hate women, and the women who love them.” For some people in a strange way the so called “battle of the sexes” can increase their passion. Even the worst misogynist still has a mother. Men would not be born without women obviously. I have heard stories of radical feminists that have boyfriends. Tarnished you are right in your case you are not a “traditional” women which I admire your openness. For an mgtow who hates women or a radfem hating men , that is a huge population segment that half the population. People cannot pigeon hole or make generalities about half the population for there are both men and women who do not fit any traditional societal model.
.” Plus men can be forced to penetrate or be penetrated just as much as women can be penetrated.”
I know female on rape has happened but can you give me an example either a real life scenario where a female can or has physically forced/raped a man to penetrate?
You are correct about mgtow and as I said before it is good that you have compassion. But those mgtow forums that hate on women are not representative of a true mgtow. There is absolutely no reason to hate women. A man can be mgtow without the hate. I think initially men becomemmgtow because they’ve been burned by a woman in a relationship/divorce or have perhaps some sort of gynophobia perhaps they were traumatized as a child by an unstable female parental type figure. I say this because I initially became mgtow because of bad experiences I had in the past and I was sexually abused by my older sister as a kid. So I initially was one of those angry mgtow’s . However, I got therapy and had a good psychotherapaist and worked on my issues. Now I have no ill will towards women but am still mgtow. I just have chosen to be single my whole life and not date. I agree and do not agree about touch. I don’t think requiring touch is crucial to a man but it can be an enhancer in his life. Some mgtow like myself enjoy a massage by a professional licensed massage therapist(LMT) and help take the edge off. Some mgtow see escorts and some reportedly have love dolls. These love dolls are very expensive but are realistic looking. It is not for me but I have heard of some mgtow using them. The main thing is a man does not need validation from society y having a girlfriend/wife.
You are correct I you cannot save the world but you have a good compassionate heart and seem to care about mgtow in a way. The mgtow forums banned women but the site was taken down go figure. A voice for men is an mgtow site that has women members.
Lastly about the male stripper I hear your point of view about not objectifying people. The fact is you want to “get to know” someone as a human being rather than just a stripper and I have that same attitude towards female strippers. I have seen the porno male stripper sites you referred to and was so dumbfounded that women can be so aggressive giving oral sex to a stranger I think they staged the whole thing.

This sounds like a primarily American disease to me. (And yes, you see plenty of it in the rest of the Anglosphere and Scandinavia, too. But we’re the champs.) The many foreign women I know would be aghast at what, to them, is the equivalent of confessing a fear of puppies or turtles.

A humanities professor at a major state university in the Midwest told a dinner group I was with that his male students always returned from their semester in Europe (or elsewhere) with the same observation.

Student: “Gee, Professor W, there’s something different, something special, about the ladies over there. But I just can’t put my finger on what it is…”

That’s pretty funny, but a good observation. I have taken to really looking at the people I pass by when walking in the mall my store is in, or just out on the street. For the most part, the men seem fairly happy (or at least not unhappy). The majority of women however, are rather dour/troubled/rushed looking. Strangely, when I smile at the men they smile back 98% of the time…but the women’s expressions tend to worsen, either looking put off by my attempt at pleasantness or just all out scowling at me. There *is* the random girl or woman who will smile back, but it’s typically a very small/hesitant one.

I smile while in public because my neutral face is often mistaken for angry or upset…I don’t know why, it just is. So I take pains to look friendly. I sometimes wonder if somehow all these women have a neutral face like mine and they simple don’t care to change it, or if they’ve schooled their features into a permanent “Do Not Fuck With Me” expression to wear around other people.

Judging by the information you have kindly presented here, I’m betting more on the latter being true. Thanks for sharing such a good story. Hope to hear more from you!

Yes, I have read forums of both radfems and MGTOWs where some of the commenters essentially claimed that they avoided the “other half” to an extreme. One radfem said the only man allowed in her house was her brother…even her daughter’s boyfriend had to stay outside, rain, shine, or snow. A MGTOW admitted to specifically requesting male waiters in restaurants, not buying his groceries if the only cashier was female, and openly sneering at any woman he was forced to deal with.

To me, extremes such as these are incredibly rude and more to the point, unnecessary. Being mean to the random men or women you encounter…when they’ve done naught wrong to invoke your ire other than simply existing…is stupid. Society functions as a *whole*, we are all interconnected. To deny this is to admit delusion, and that one lives in a fantasy world.

Men would not be born without women. Women would not be born without men. We need each other. This need is not a weakness, it’s a statement to the fact we are a part of Nature, as much as some try to eliminate our connection via the gloss of “civilization”. Women and men are equally important to the survival of our species, as well as the survival of society. There’s no room for “inferior” or “superior” here.

I am sorry to hear of your sexual abuse. I too was sexually abused as a child, which you may or may not know. It was from age 10-17, and was done to me via my stepfather. If you want to know more, I have a category about it. I for one do not understand why such acts are committed against us. Fie upon our traitorous kin.

It is fine to not date, or marry, or to wish for singlehood one’s whole life. As of right now, that’s where I am too. Touch *is* a necessary part of being human, whether one is a man or woman. I don’t mean sexual touch…perhaps I should have clarified. The touch I refer to is basic, simple skin-on-skin contact. I know many people who are not interested in sex (either because they are asexual or are ‘broken’ like us), but they still go to massage sessions, reflexologists, and hair salons in order to get the touch their bodies crave. Others have pets that they form strong bonds with…the touch doesn’t have to be from other humans. I plan on doing a post about this later.

And yes, this is totally different than a need for validation. Men should live their lives without requiring validation from women. Likewise, women should live their lives without requiring validation from men.

I care about *everyone*, dearheart.

Unfortunately, I know that some of those crazy parties were not staged. In my second year of college, 2 of my classmates were female strippers putting themselves through school. Both said that they and their friends would frequent Chipendale clubs to “let loose” and “feel empowered”. Get a few drinks in a woman who believes empowerment = becoming an undiscriminating slave to sex, and you’ll most likely see what I’m talking about.

I mean, I greatly enjoy giving head to my lover, and it does give one a sense of power, but to do it so aggressively and without actually wanting to give pleasure to the recipient…ugh. It’s a perversion of what oral sex is meant to be.

I’m going to put my cards on the table: I’m against women choosing their mates, owning private property, voting, making a living wage, and every right that women did not have before 1300.
If I’m a bigot, then Jesus Christ, His apostles, and the early Church which Jesus founded were bigots.
Jesus Christ was of perfect character and the most loving person, while feminism makes men miserable.
I believe in an increase in the population of Earth’s bright lights, but that the immoral and nonproductive should be encouraged to decrease: A strict fertility plan, causing a slight decrease in Earth’s population overall. Today we practice the opposite: Dysgenics. We need to repent or perish.

And you’re allowed to think that. I know a lot of people who enjoy being “thought police” and get upset at the very notion that people, such as yourself, have these opinions.

That’s not me.
Do I disagree with you? Yes.
Do I think these are bigoted opinions? Yes.
Do I feel slightly sad that if you somehow had the power, you’d essentially make me a slave and everything I hold dear as an independent adult citizen? Yes.
But I also believe it is your right to think whatever you want, and I would gladly defend this aspect of our society even while believing your opinions are hurtful and atrocious.

I do not agree with anything you’ve written here, and I would revolt against any political party or government that tried to implement such things. But thoughts are not laws, and ideas are not requirements, so I do not care that you think this way.

Oh, and be aware that your talk of selective breeding of human beings is treading *extremely* close to the very edge of my Comments Policy. Proceed with caution, KC. I don’t enjoy editing people’s comments or moderating them, but I will to protect others and keep this a safe space for men and women alike.

Tarn:
Fine forthright comments.
I would add though, that going back to 1300 wouldn’t make women slaves. Women didn’t work outside the home, while today, many single women are wage slaves.
And though people like George Sodini and Elliot Rodger are very rare, there might be millions of men of thinking about what these men acted upon.
I regret that I felt like I had to pull out the E word. I’m just trying to defend traditional values. It seemed like you were saying that maintaining traditional values would cause problems like overpopulation.
Again, since Earth began to now (50 million years?) traditional patriarchal values are the one thing that creates civilizations; feminism, polyamoury, etc. tears things down in the long run. There’s a book that proves this; I forgot the name. I mentioned its name at the start of my chapter on Marriage.

:@KC
I sure hope you’re referring to arranged marriages (which have a better record than the romantic kind), and not forced ones. Freely given consent has been a fundamental requirement of the Christian sacrament of marriage– which is administered by the couple themselves, not the priest– from the beginning. Some of the most beloved saints, e.g, Agatha, Agnes, Barbara, Lucy, were martyred for rejecting the suitors chosen for them. Forced marriage, like the prohibition of wine, is a barbaric, un-Christian practice best left to the Mohammedans.
Eugenics, like Prohibition (and suffragism!), was a progressive cult of a century ago. Its primary practitioners today are sperm and egg “banks” and their customers. Which explains why the “donor-conceived” kids trying to close them down are so eloquent.
However, anyone who’s fallen in love and wanted a child is guilty of another sort of eugenics, so we should think twice about throwing the first stone.

I am unsure how taking away someone’s rights doesn’t make them a slave to those who have rights.

If I have no voice in my government, then any actions they take are without my consent or desires factored in.

If I have no ability to choose who I mate with/marry, then I am a slave to first my father then my husband.

If I am disallowed from earning a living for myself or own property, I am a slave to the whims of my husband.

If I am forced to stay at home and become pregnant against my will, then I am a slave to my husband and the desires of society.

I *would* be a slave, because I would be viewed as a piece of property, be denied my own opinions and desires, and have all semblance of autonomy taken away. And why? Though an accident of birth that gave me a vagina rather than a penis? I realize that some aspects of life are unfair…this is part and parcel to being alive. But to condone a type of system that deliberately and intentionally seeks to create unfairness is atrocious. This is why we got rid of slavery and sexist laws against women. Now we need to focus on getting rid of misandric laws and pressures, so that men and women can be equal under the eyes of the law.

The fact that there might be “millions” of men thinking of killing random men and women to vent their frustrations is not because of the lack of “traditional values”. It is the result of a disgustingly messed up society that tells our men to ignore their mental issues, to “man up” despite any justified feelings of rage/hurt they suffer, and that they *require* and *automatically deserve* validation from women in order to be of worth. This is patently false…men and women alike have worth because they are thinking, feeling human beings.

I’ve not been a Christian for many years now, but from what I remember I agree with you.

Also need to point out that actual forced marriage is an Islam-IST value, not an Islam-IC value. A subtle but important distinction, as most Muslims I know are very against the idea of forced (or even gently arranged) marriage. The extremists of a religion should not be confused with the moderate believers.

Forgot to mention this in my previous response, but you wrote “Women didn’t work outside the home, while today, many single women are wage slaves.”

The only way this applies is if you are talking solely about the upper classes, and predominantly white women. Unless you’re saying that the African lady who walks 15 miles both ways to bring her family water and groceries is “in the home”? Or maybe the European women who labored for 14 hours a day in textile factories? Perhaps the Asian women who planted acres of rice fields for their communities? The pilgrim and frontier women who killed livestock, tilled farmland, acted as nurses and midwives, chopped wood, hunted, built log cabins, and made the arduous, potentially death-filled journeys to their new homes alongside their husbands? Or go back even farther to our “caveman” days when females would gather fruits, vegetables, fish, and small game while the males where out attempting (and yes, sometimes failing) to bring home large prey…Do you consider this working “inside” the home? If so, how?

From Wikipedia:
‘Women have worked at agricultural tasks since ancient times, and continue to do so around the world. The Industrial Revolution of the late 18th and early 19th centuries changed the nature of work in Europe and other countries of the Western world. Working for a wage, and eventually a salary, became part of urban life. Initially, women were to be found doing even the hardest physical labour, including working as “hurriers” hauling heavy coal carts through mine shafts in Great Britain, a job that also employed many children. This ended after government intervention and the passing of the Mines and Collieries Act 1842, an early attempt at regulating the workplace.

During the 19th century, an increasing number of women in Western countries took jobs in factories, such as textile mills, or on assembly lines for machinery or other goods. Women also worked as “hawkers” of produce, flowers, and other market goods, and bred small animals in the working-class areas of London. Piecework, which involved needlework (weaving, embroidery, winding wool or silk) that paid by the piece completed, was the most common employment for women in 19th century Great Britain. It was poorly paid, and involved long hours, up to 14 hours per day to earn enough wages to survive. Working-class women were usually involved in some form of paid employment, as it provided some insurance against the possibility that their husband might become too ill or injured to support the family. During the era before workers’ compensation for disability or illness, the loss of a husband’s wages could result in the entire family being sent to a Victorian workhouse to pay debts.’

Also…”wage slaves”? I will readily admit that most people (men and women) would probably not work if they didn’t have to. Hence, why I think our welfare system is as screwed up as it is…But I’d be lying if I claimed I didn’t love my job, or that I’m not excited to open my own gaming store by 2016. I *like* working, and I hardly think being an adult who pays her own bills and rent is being a wage slave. It’s part of being an independent, single adult in Western society, and I am quite happy with being a successful manager and future business partner. I would be more of a slave were I forced to rely on another’s hard work for my survival, and be in an inescapable, perpetual debt to them for doing so.

Oh, I know. And yet people are (justifiably and righteously) upset by such racist thoughts and actions. But it’s somehow ok to be sexist against all men?

I am of the opinion that it’s one thing to take care of yourself and pay attention to one’s surroundings. Both sexes should do this. But to go out of your way to treat all members of a certain type as potential monsters is ludicrous and paranoid.

Tarn:
Please delete my mentioning the E subject since it is not appropriate for your blog.
What I could have said is: Traditional nuclear families have no downsides. They won’t necessarily cause overpopulation. Overpopulation can be countermanded by such things as increased infertility rates, natural family planning, et cetera.
I have much more to say, but I’m having problems with my computer deleting various words. I’ll try getting it fixed and get back to you.
Everyone: Have a nice day/evening.

I think that this fits in to this thread because it shows that women might fear men because their (women’s) stronger in-group preference leads to men being ‘othered’. I am absolutely not saying that they are justified in their fear of all men (being afraid of small number of bad men is good sense for men and women).

— Heartiste is not to the tastes of all. don’t go there if you’re the sensitive type —
— the comments are always stronger than the article, maybe just read the top —
— trigger warning – science — 😉

Tarn:
Now according to you, I’m a slave because I’m forced to rely on another’s work and owe them a perpetual debt? Rather, not working, this frees my life, which I use to spread the truth around the world; a higher, more noble calling.
Eventually, people may consider themselves slaves to gravity, and seek independence from it. Our society has swallowed loads of Modernist psychobabble.
Since there are more women than men in the United States, and considering your highly unusual personality, I might make an exception in your case, and have you do your own thing. But society as a whole needs to go back to 1300, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Men deserve to be able to have good jobs, and not be impeded by women competing for those same jobs.
Men deserve to be married without suffering traumatic divorce. Men deserve to be fathers.
Men have powerful ual urges every single day. They deserve to have their release with a woman, which the vast majority of men highly highly highly prefer instead of with their hand or another man.
Men deserve not to be victims of prejudice by paranoid women as you pointed out, and all the other social ills that women’s equal rights causes for mega-millions of men.
But despite all this, I take it that you still support monstrous feminism in the concern that your ability to own your own gamer’s franchise might be impeded. Is this correct?
Pieces of property? We’re all pieces of property; we’re God’s property, who formed us for specific purposes.
As far as ism, bigotry, ignorance, lack of love, etc., then I guess Jesus Christ was a ist bigot who was ignorant and unloving, since I never detected a whiff of feminism or women’s equal rights in any of His writings. Or am I missing something here?

Are you actually forced to rely on another’s work and finances? Are you physically/mentally unable to hold a job of any sort, or do you simply prefer not to and this other person (a parent, I’m guessing?) for some reason doesn’t mind supporting you?

I ask because there is a significant difference between forcing someone to choose between marriage and financial security or singlehood and poverty VS just not wanting to support oneself and being content living off someone else’s work.

We already have “independence” from gravity. They are vehicles called airplanes, jets, helicopters, space shuttles, and engine-powered hangliders. Even more futuristic modes of transportation, such as individual jetpacks, are currently in prototype status. You’re still comparing an immutable law of the physical world to a societal opinion though…

How would you determine who else gets to “do their own thing”? Do schools need to give a mandatory personality test to all older boys and girls before they graduate 12th grade, and this will determine which girls are “allowed” to pursue careers rather than housewifery? To be fair, will this same test “allow” select boys to be househusbands instead of careerists? What if someone is infertile, or has a mental/physical disorder that prevents them from being adequate parents? Do they not even have to be tested and are able to do whatever they wish?

What is so special about the 1300’s, exactly? And are you talking about the culture of 1300’s (currently named) Zimbabwe…France…Argentina…Canada…Japan…Tasmania…Michigan…what? Each of these areas had incredibly different cultural expectations during this time frame. Your insistence on this particular era means nothing without further reference. If you wish for us to live as the Iroquois did in the 1300’s that’s very different than how the Russians lived…Frankly, I’d prefer the Iroquois society I think.

Men deserve to have good jobs provided they are capable of doing said jobs. Just like women.

Men deserve the ability to find a compatible lifemate, just like women. Nobody deserves to be a parent. Nobody deserves marriage.

Men do have sexual urges everyday. So do many women. Nobody deserves sex with another person, be they man/woman/trans. I highly prefer sex as well. I enjoy sex, crave it, love it, want it every day, even numerous sessions in one day. In spite of this fact *I do not deserve sex*. I’m lucky enough to have a sexual partner who has the same libido, and he’s lucky to have me. Neither of us, despite being productive, tax paying members of society and generally good people, deserve another person’s body for our gratification.

Men deserve to not be victimized by paranoid women who want to control them, just as women deserve to not be victimized by sexist men who want to control them.

KC, you know I’m not a feminist. I’m an egalitarian. I don’t support the majority of feminist ideology…I simply want both sexes to be able to live harmoniously and with satisfaction on an individual as well as societal level. If this meant 90% of women *choose* to remain housewives and 90% of men *choose* to be careerists, I would have absolutely no problem with that. Then the other 10% of men and women can stay single, be gay/lesbian/asexual, have opposite gender roles, be happy in their own ways, etc.

I am not afraid of my career being impeded at all. You don’t speak for society, and I am not concerned about what you think I should be doing with my life. This is a hypothetical discussion, nothing more.

I don’t share your religious views, but you already know that. Jesus was a great man with fantastic ideas for the most part. The fact that he didn’t condemn the adulteress in John 8:2-11, or mind talking to the Samaritan woman in John 4:4 showed that he believed women should be given forgiveness. The fact your book says he willingly healed and forgave the sins of women of various ages and faiths, like in Luke 13:10, Luke 7:36, Matthew 15:22, and Mark 5:25 shows how he cared for women as individuals with their own lives. And let us not forget that he not only had a good number of women who choose to follow him in his wanderings, but he appeared to them first after his ‘resurrection’ as told in Matthew 28:1. You say that you can detect not even a “whiff” of equality in anything Jesus was said to have done…what Bible exactly are you reading?

Oh, and I noticed you neglected to write the word “sex” when you attempted to say “sexual”, “sexism”, and “sexist”…Am I to assume you dislike the Song of Songs as well?

It certainly does fit in. I don’t usually read Heartiste because he can be pretty racist, and I hardly approve of some of the language he uses in general. However, I read the post you linked to as well as took the 16PF test that the study refers to. My results were fairly close to what I thought they’d be, although I was surprised at my Warmth and Liveliness scores…I assumed they’d be higher. My Tension score is probably why I have such good customer service though, lol. Here’s what I got, on the scale of 0-4.

@Tarn
I’m actually forced to rely on another’s work and finances, physically and mentally unable to hold any type of job.
We have NO independence from gravity! We can’t live in the air, and gravity always controls planes, etc. or they’d float away into outer space. Let’s not forget basic physics. Even spaceships depend on gravity; they’re largely steered and propelled by moons and planets. Now if traditional gender roles are as much God’s law as gravity, those who seek independence from them will eventually crash into God’s judgment, will they not?
Nothing special about the 1300s. What’s important is going back before equal rights existed in any culture. If it’s too hard to make exceptions, I’d expect every male to be a man, and every woman to accept subservience to men for the greater good. The profoundly handicapped stay single obviously.
Women weren’t made to be breadwinners (husbands). God made women for men and made men’s parts. So yes they’re entitled. And women having urges every day is illogical.
I’m not afraid of using certain words; I just told you my computer deletes them; it cannot be fixed. I love SOS; so you’re being ridiculous here. But it’s no more authoritative than my chapter 35, a futuristic SOS.
You’re doing a fine job documenting sources; good for you. Now for a bibliography? You quote Scripture well, but give no examples of Jesus supporting feminist demands. And what woman ever stayed with Jesus on His wanderings? What woman ever stayed with the apostles, besides an apostle’s wife?
I define feminism as women’s equal rights. You support women’s equal rights which tear down society, do you not? And I deny that Jesus was an egalitarian. Christians have denied it until the 1960s.
I’d like you to repent of Modernism, but the big thing is repenting of “We can’t know if there’s a God or not.” Jesus told us to love God with every fiber of our being. First things first.

Then you’ll be waiting your whole life, I’m afraid. I *already* believe in God, just as I believe in Goddess. My faith, which I treasure just as much as you treasure your own, does not hold that gender roles are “divine laws”…they are societal constructs that work for some and not for others. Women (whether cis or not) are not subservient to men (also whether cis or not). In Pagan weddings, we do not exchange vows that include mention of either spouse being subservient *or* having leadership. The Goddess is just as powerful as the God…in some traditions, even moreso.

In most of our creation myths, men and women were made at the same moment *for each other*, not woman for man. This is hardly an argument anyway, as nearly all scientists agree that males and females of a species evolve together…so nobody was “made” in the first place. Men are no more entitled to women’s affections than women are entitled to men’s. I must admit, the idea of such is perfectly disgusting, vomit-inducing, and abusive as this was one of the “arguments” my stepfather gave for using my body as he did. Too many men and women feel entitled to another person’s flesh nowadays, and anyone stating that this is somehow “good” will be banned from commenting further. If not for other’s mental and emotional health, than for my own…I may often put other people before myself, but even I have limits with what I’ll allow. This is a place for safe discussion for all, including myself, and if a problem arises that causes me to relapse into that which I have tried so hard to overcome, said problem will be removed without a spare thought.

You will not be able to use arguments of faith to sway my position, as my religion is quite close to being the opposite of yours.

@KC
as a decided NON-feminist, I have to ask what you’re imbibing. It’s more than plain kool-aid, that’s for sure.

Where I’m coming from:
I don’t have any religion, I do believe that there are gender differences of mind and body (but on distribution curves. there are male minded females (Tarn being the best example of that I’ve ever conversed with) and males with female strength and all combinations thereof). I have been married and divorced, still like women fine, but will never marry again. I’d describe myself as a mostly MGTOW / MRA mongrel mix who would like a healthier, more truthful, more realistic society (ergo, once again, I am not a feminist).

Back to you:
You cannot look about the world around you and not see women capable of performing some jobs as well as some men can. And some jobs better (IMHO). How can you possibly tell such women to go back to the kitchen??? That is (to use an over-exercised word) unbelievable to me. I am not in favour of any quotas or AA or such dribble. But if a woman can meet the same standards as a guy for any job? yougogirl. I would have been a feminist in the 50s-60s when they were seeking equal wages for equal work (which they got – no dribble about 77c on the dollar nowadays – that’s crap). I am for equality nowadays (which means that I am not a feminist), pure equality of opportunity and then let the gender cards fall as they may on merit basis.

On the other side of the argument, I have absolutely no wish to be held legally responsible for a woman and kids. One of my grandfathers nearly went to gaol when his wife refused to tell him what assets she had, or pay the tax on them – She had that money, He was legally responsible for paying the tax (this is why husbands had to sign for loans, mortgages and credit cards 50 years ago and more – feminists never tell you that bit, do they?).

So Tarn, as a woman, doesn’t wish to go back to the 50s and cook, clean etc, and I, as a man, don’t want to go back as a provider pack-mule for a wife’n’kidz either. We’ve all come a long way baby, and not all of it was ‘satan’s work’, some of it was the pure freeing of both men and women from hideously outdated straight jackets. Just in case I haven’t been clear enough; I would allow women to be happy housewives if they so wish, and men to be familial providers if they so wish – I merely would not wish to prevent anybody doing what they want as long as meet the actual mental and physical requirements of the job regardless of their sex.

You are completely out of your gourd if you think that we as a society are going back to your biblical shangri-la-la-land, which had distinct drawbacks for both men and women (just not the same ones).

@Spawny
Here’s the deal:
I will no longer comment on this subject here; it’s getting too controversial as I was just told.
But if you challenge me on this issue, there are two options. We can deal with it privately (my e-mail is alicewonderland523@yahoo.com) or we can meet on a blog. You name the blog.
I’m an honest person who is simply seeking the truth. So if you can beat me, by showing that your position is more logical, then I will change my position. If not, my position will simply spread further, as my website gains popularity.
I’m awaitng your reply.

My reply is that I’m not interested in your views. Your views will never have any influence on where the world is going (for reasons that I gave above). You and your views are an irrelevance in the modern world from both the feminist and mra points of view. And no one else is listening (either).
As an atheist I see no value in your claiming authority from a god I don’t believe in (and never have). Note that I’m a UK atheist, that is not the same as a USA one. I am making no political statement when I say I’m not a believer (don’t assume what my position on abortion etc is, don’t assume that I’m a leftoid), I am not interested in any organised atheist movement, the fact that I am an atheist is something that very rarely gets mentioned – because it is irrelevant in UK life (outside of some immigrant communities where religious fervour has been imported). Dawkins et al (rare creatures in real life) aside, I grew up in a post religious society based on christian values (note, small c) but with no enthusiasm for organised religion).
You can praise the non-religious values of christianity and I will largely agree. I have come to regard the bible as a pretty well observed reference guide for forming a coherent society that built civilisations in the past. But automation has changed everything, women can go out and earn their way (and they’d better because I have no wish to subsidise one). This side of the Zombie Apocalypse (or complete financial collapse) men are not needed as protector-providers of their littlelady’n’kidz. Red-pill men don’t want to be tooled in that way and neither do many women wish to be patronised in that way.
Would I prefer a return to more christian values? yes, but when you say women should be subservient to men (I am lmfao right now) because god says so…and you expect society to step back a hundred years to ways of life that are no longer required by circumstance…you’re out of your tiny mind.
Feminism for good and ill has revealed what women are really like…and they are just as fcuked up as men are, just in a different way. There is a reasonably sized group of men who are never going to pedestalise women again. Guys who hear the latest BS from feminists (micro-aggressions…really? 1/1000000 of an aggression! why not pull up your big girl panties and shrug it off (if it even exists)?) (Ban Bossy? nobody likes bossy men or women. Being called bossy is push back from people telling you to rein in your ego, it’s not a sexist thing) and they just roll their eyes. The lies about 77c on the dollar were debunked decades ago. Well intentioned advice (be aware of your surroundings and act accordingly – great advice to both sexes) as ‘victim blaming’…really? It’s all looking very shaky these days.
You compare the MSM comments sections nowadays with those of five years ago and the increased red-pill tone is unmistakeable. Those men are not going to be interested in signing up as a provider pack mule for an entitled princess on a pedestal. They no longer see women as delicate, innocent flowers to self-sacrifice for. Chivalry is dead, feminism killed it – good riddance. I look forward to an open and honest debate over how to build a society that works with men and women as they are.
Women like Tarn are clearly well able to make their way in business (you go gi…Tarn), what interest should she have in being a SAHM? She has every right (and ability) to chase her own dreams. Good for her and good for all women. (All I’d do is stop all this quota crap and let everyone compete on merit. Equality all the way, baby)
Stop being so rude on Tarn’s blog. She’s made it very plain that she fundamentally disagrees with you. You will not beat her (mentally) into submission. All you’re doing is spoiling the atmosphere on her blog, where she has the right to talk about what she wants to without you diverting her time into an argument that will never change either of your views, or interest the vast majority of her readers. Her continuing to let you comment speaks well of her commitment to free speech, but IMHO you’re abusing that. You’re the loud mouth spoling the dinner party for the nice guests. I’d ban you for your bad manners FWTW. Tarn is too nice in this case. Just an opinion, clearly.
Have a nice day.

Thank you for both your comments. I find it odd, and somewhat trying, when I explain to Traditionalists/Religious Conservatives that the Men’s Rights Movement and MGTOW has freed *both* sexes. For whatever reason, people such as KC believe a substantial amount of the mrm wants to go back to the days (which never really existed, as I pointed out a few comments ago) of all women being SAHM and all men being protector/providers, if only women were subservient. Obviously, this is not the case as anyone reading the majority of Men’s Rights blogs/sites can attest.

Women should not be put on a pedestal…it’s quite easy to fall off and is undeserved 98% of the time anyway. First wave feminism was, in my opinion, a very good thing that tipped the scales into balance for the middle and upper class women who, like myself, want to be able to have financial freedom.

Men should not be shamed into family life or chivalrous actions…to do so is to say their own dreams of freedom/bachelorhood is not acceptable. As for chivalry, I echo your sentiment of “good riddance”. Men do not have to do things for women that they wouldn’t do for another man. Here’s a concept: why don’t both sexes help each other out as the situation calls for? Wouldn’t that be kinder and more efficient?

I agree with no more quotas based on sex either. Have employers review applications without names/indicators of sex visible. This way, merit is used to fill job openings instead. Equality all the way, as it should be.

As you’ve already told Spawny that you won’t push any further onto this subject, I have no reason to ban you. So thanks for acknowledging the standards I uphold here. Perhaps I am, as Spawny says, too nice…but I am a lover of free speech (until it becomes either malicious or hurtful to others). I would like to point out that he is correct in another area too: You often go from speaking your opinion to pushing your beliefs. This is the second time, at least, that you’ve tried to “convert” me back to Christianity despite being told unequivocally that I have absolutely no desire to go back to that faith. You make the same mistake that most pushy Christians do, that of assuming a non-Christian just must not have heard *enough* of the ‘good word’ to convert. I tell you now: I have heard what many branches of Christians have to say. I own two different bibles and have read both cover to cover. I am in the US, where I experience the cruelty of Christians who believe I am a devil worshipper *and* the love of Christians who are my friends. I am happy and spiritually fulfilled in my religion, not in yours. Do *not* attempt to convert me back again.

You are still free to comment here, but I request that you keep said comments on topic. This post is about how a significant amount of women live with androphobia and how this can affect men they meet…yet your latest comment to me was an argument for women to have no bodily autonomy. I don’t mind *some* tangents, but I’ll not have derailments that are hurtful or sexist to anyone. Once again, read my Comments Policy then ask yourself if what you’ve been saying here is in line with it.

I thought I’d made it clear before that while I respect you as a person, I do not agree with the majority of your beliefs, religious or no. I will never agree that women should submit to men, or that men are entitled to sex, or that women should all be stay at home moms with numerous babies. Likewise I will never agree that men should be chivalrous, or that women are entitled to a relationship, or that all men should take up the yoke of husband/provider. This will not change just because you want it to, and relying on a religious text I do not believe in or care about to make your arguments does nothing.

You have your own blog to push your beliefs on. If you continue to do so on mine, you will be banned. I’ve only had to do it to one other person. Please don’t force my hand to ban you as well.

Morning Tarn,
my experience on a number of men’s blogs going back 5-7 years was that quite regularly a prospective patriarch (blue pill tradcon) would come along regarding the commentariate as an army looking to be recruited into his wise and benevolant leadership. They seemed bewildered when the guys (even US religious ones) sent them off with a flea in their ear. Part of the red-pill is seeing the world as it is and then dealing with it realistically. One of my favourite, respected blogs is one belonging to a religious American guy. He addresses reality, that to me is the mark of a man. I respect what he says and where his beliefs come from, I guess I’d call him a red-pill tradcon (thopugh I’m not American, so maybe my words are best seen as approximations of those a local would use). You still see them occasionally, they are ridiculed until they wake up (take the red-pill whilst retaining their core values, just recognising reality) or leave and go …elsewhere.
I think that the problem you have with explaining the realities of the manosphere is that today’s society is full of marketing billshot – endless words devoid of meaning. Any intelligent adult is very wary of accepting words at face value. For example, feminists often say that feminism is for men too…I’m still waiting for them to actually attempt to address those problems, let alone solve any. Beyond a couple of empty words, feminism is entirely for the interests of feminists. It even has little interest in women’s issues beyond using them to gain power and money (IMHO). They have no real interest in allowing women to pursue their individual interests, women are there to serve as spear catchers, after all, as Simone de Beauvoir ((in)famous early feminist) put it (in an interview with Betty Friedan iirc)
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
That’s not looking at women as adults to be set free, that’s seeing them as pawns in a political power struggle.
People don’t seem to realise that the manosphere is not the same as feminism – it isn’t a reflection. The manosphere is an army of individuals without any particular leaders, that’s what makes it impossible to co-opt by feminists or wannabe-petty-patriarchs living back in the fifties (19th or 20th century). It’s also why if men get legal equality the MRM would be dead the next day, not searching for ever more ridiculous reasons to keep the gravy train going decades after the war was won. Using bent stats, flawed research or just emotive lies made up from scratch.
Have a nice day Tarn.

Just seen your second (July 2, 2014 at 7:55 AM ) comment.
Well said. I respect your ability to count to ten before replying…but I still think that you have the right to be pissed from time to time (with me included in that). Yours is not the only blog I’ve seen where the effort to allow for free speech came into conflict with the fundamental aims of the blog being abused.

“I mean,” I said, “men are bigger, most of the time, they can run faster, strangle better, and they have on the average a lot more money and power.”
“They’re afraid women will laugh at them,” he said. “Undercut their world view.”

Let me rephrase your friend’s response a bit. While men, due to a stronger frame might be more capable of physical feats, women, due to their brain structure and cultural training are better at relational aggression.
Men generally have an instinctive urge to protect and be kinder to women, a fact not lost on most women, and in the same way that one has the built-in caution about being rude to one’s employer or client, we have that same restriction. Women, however, have no such instinct regarding men. Men are not natural targets for kindness and nurturing, and so, women, being simple apes, mere social mammals do what comes naturally: they strive for dominance in a social hiearchy. This often comes in the form of plausibly deniable social attacks on one’s status and sense of self. Combined with the halo of innocence and weakness, along with the subtleties of interpersonal communication, it is more difficult for a man to fend off the phsychological attack rather than an obvious physical one.
Where men have a natural desire to be vulnerable and honest in a healthy way, he is too often precluded from opening up, not so as to impress men, as it is often characterized, but to prevent an attack from what he would hope would be a safe-harbour. While we were boys, most of our mothers were kind to us, and it is this simple kindness, free of power-struggles that men seek. Sex is merely an expression of acceptance. We often seek sex as a means goal, where overall, what we seek is intimacy. Intimacy involves being open and free and vulnerable, and this is difficult to do when every thought, word or act can be used against him.
Consider: why do men often brag of their sexual prowess: they are bragging that they can please a woman. They don’t brag about how much pleasure they can experience, but how much they can give. What does this tell you about a man’s mindset towards relationships?

Oh, and just to smooth any ruffled feathers: I know that women are raped, mugged, kidnapped, assaulted, and murdered everyday (as are men).

And that you feel the need to say this is one reason that I’m anti-feminist.

The irony of women being afraid of all men is that only a tiny minority of men dare to raise their hands in violence against women. Where as the VAST MAJORITY of men intentionally aim their violent behavior at other men. The issue of male on male violence is also an extremely TABOO SUBJECT within the men’s movement and daring to bring it up will quickly get one censored and banned.

@Francis Roy
Being open and honest not only exposes men to being hurt by women but also makes men vulnerable to their fellow males who will use his openness and honesty against him to belittle and destroy him.

“Why do men feel threatened by women?” I asked a male friend of mine. So this male friend of mine, who does by the way exist, conveniently entered into the following dialogue.
“I mean,” I said, “men are bigger, most of the time, they can run faster, strangle better, and they have on the average a lot more money and power.”
“They’re afraid women will laugh at them,” he said. “Undercut their world view.”
Then I asked some women students in a quickie poetry seminar I was giving, “Why do women feel threatened by men?”
“They’re afraid of being killed,” they said. Atwood, Margaret, Writing the Male Character (1982)

I’m afraid women might try and kill me. They will just use a man as a proxy. The source of female power is being able to manipulate manginas into doing there bidding, and manginas are most of the male population.